Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Dana Robertson wrote:

I would have been here sooner to prove No Surprise wrong some more, but I just had to watch the Republican Convention tonight. I heard earlier that Chris Christie was giving a speech and I knew it would be a good one. I wasn't wrong. But I will have to say after watching Ann Romney's speech, she is a classy lady and will make a good first lady. Now to the Obama supporters reading this, don't misunderstand me. I very much think Michele Obama is also a very classy lady and a great First lady. I got to hear her give a live speech a few years back at the graduating class of the University of California. I couldn't help but love her. She makes Obama look good. But my favorite First Lady of all time will always be Barbara Bush. I use to wish she was my mother. I love watching the conventions. Election years are my Superbowls, and I can't help but get involved every time. They are symbols of what makes this country great, and if you ever really want to piss me off, tell me you refuse to vote. I consider that a crime. But this is the first time I have ever heard Ann Romney give a speech, and I can definitely see what made Mitt fall in love with her.

I see that you and I agree on a few things. I too, absolutely love Barbara Bush. And, you're absolutely right, Ann Romney will make an excellent First Lady.

Second, ministers of the area were trying to win various members of the Smith family to their little churches. If the entire Smith family was lewd and made their home as a brothel

Again, you add words. Who claimed they tried to use their home as a brothel?

with mom and dad and ten children, why were those ministers trying to get them into their churches?

That is what ministers do, try to convert the sinners into saints.

It sure wasn't to get them to repent. In those days, a minister wanted up standing people of the community with upstanding characters to be part of their church. Get it?

You don't seem to get it. Ministers are in the business of converting people. That is their jobs.

A family that acted like whores, having incestuous relationships and bring any dick or jane home to be sexed up by all the family members and of whom all were thought of as lewd as the accusations stated was the case, no minister would want that family in their church. So that's proof of somemore of your drinking the stupid juice to swallow such crap as true and fact before you even investigate the alligations.

Apparently, you don't seem to understand the purpose of Christianity, of the teachings of repentance, of the teachings of forgiveness. The reason they even build churches. Saving the sinner is a fundamental aspect of any church, even the Mormon church. So the one drinking the stupid apparently is you if you don't even understand that simple, basic truth. That is part of my purpose of feeding the homeless. It gives me a door to bring Christ into their lives. I don't care if they are prostitutes, alcoholics, drug addicts, they all need the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ. Those were the people Jesus spent the most time with. Maybe you don't see them as being worth redeeming, but Christianity is a church build in part on the belief that they are.

Next, as you do, you can believe anything of Smith being some *ick swinging sex stud all you want. It doesn't make you correct. There is no actual evidence.

And again, by your demands of evidence, there is no actual evidence they were hard working or moral. We are going by your standards here.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RELIABILITY OF THE AFFIDAVITS

Despite efforts by Nibley and other Mormon defenders to deny historical reality on the reliability of the affidavits in question, Anderson says:

“I believe that the testimonials collected by Hurlbut,[Arthur Buel] Deming, and others are in fact largely immune to the attacks launched by Nibley, Anderson, and others....[T]here can be no doubt that these reports [from Hurlbut’s collected affidavits], in early twentieth-century German historian Eduard Meyer’s words,‘give us the general opinion of his [Smith’s] neighbors in their true, essential form’”(quoted in Heinze F. Rahde and Eugene Seaich, trans.,“The Origins and History of the Mormons ...“[Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah, n.d., p. 4])

“...[I]t is clear that a broader picture of Joseph Smith emerges from these early affidavits and interviews than is otherwise available from [Smith’s] family and followers.”

(Anderson, pp. 6-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22)
_____

WIDER SCHOLARY ASSEESSMENT THAT THE AFFIDAVITS ARE AUTHENTIC AND BELIEVABLE

Predictably, Mormon apologists have relied on their traditional limited circle of Mormon defenders in unconvincing attempts to repudiate the affidavits.

Anderson writes that because of “the questionable reliability of the Kelley report and the lack of credible testimony discounting the affidavits collected by Hurlbut and others, most scholars outside of Mormonism have tended to accept the non-Mormon side of the issue. The number of witnesses, the unanimity of their testimony, the failure to impeach even a single witness, and the occasional candid reminiscence by Martin Harris, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith,. Lucy Mack Smith, William Smith, Joseph Knight, or other early Mormons have contributed to the conclusion that Hurlbut and his followers were probably reliable reporters.

Citing the work of J. H. Kennedy,“Early Days of Mormonism ...“(New York, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888, pp. 17-18), Anderson observes that “[e]ven those who suspected that the witnesses against Smith may have been motivated by more than a simple desire to inform have not questioned the depictions of Smith as a basically self-seeking charlatan.”

(Anderson, pp. 6, 9)
_____

To be continued...

IN THE END, THE AFFIDAVITS HOLD UP

Anderson crystallizes his assessment of the affidavits reliability as follows:

–“First, I can find no evidence that the primary source affidavits and other documents collected by Philastus Hurlbut, Eber D. Howe, and Arthur B Deming are other than what they purport to be. The men and women whose names they bear wither wrote them or authorized them to be written. Ghost-writing my have colored some of the testimony, but there is no evidence that the vast majority of testators did not write or dictate their own statements or share the attitudes attributed to them.

–“Second, every contemporary attempt [in Smith’s era to impugn these accounts failed. Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris’s effort to prove Isaac Hale’s letter a forgery was contradicted by Hale himself. The attempts by Lucy Mack Smith and William Smith to exonerate the Smith family of certain charges were undone by the more candid admissions of friends or other family members. And RLDS apostle William Kelley’s report, designed to discredit Joseph Smith’s debunkers was itself discredited by many of those contacted by Kelley.

“The fact that these efforts resulted in impeaching not a single witness who testified against Smith, though many of these same witnesses were still alive and willing to repeat their testimony, supports the conclusion that the statements collected by Hurlbut and Deming can be relied on as accurate reflections of their signers’ views.

–“Third, with the possible exception of Peter Ingersoll, there is no evidence that the witnesses contacted by Hurlbut in 1833-34 and Deming in 1888 perjured themselves by knowingly swearing to a lie. In fact, existing evidence goes far to substantiate the recorded stories. The harmony of the accounts, the fact that they were collected by different people at different times and place, and the sometimes impressive confirmations supplied by independent witnesses or documents never intended for public consumption discredit the argument that the work of Hurlbut and Deming contains nothing but ‘trumped-up evidence.’

–“Fourth, there is no evidence that the majority of witnesses indulged in malicious defamation by repeating groundless rumors. Many based their descriptions on close association with the Joseph Smith, Sr., family. They did not always distinguish hearsay from observation, fact from inference, but they generally state whether or not the source of the information is firsthand, and several witnesses provided enough information to demonstrate that much what was previously thought to be popular rumor about the Smiths was not wholly groundless.

“Having survived the determined criticism of Mormon scholars Hugh Nibley and Richard L. Anderson, the Hurlbut-Deming affidavits must be granted permanent status as primary documents relating to Joseph Smith’s early life and the origins of Mormonism.”
_____

THE AFFIDAVIT-SIGNERS’ FINAL ASSESSMENT OF JOSPEH SMITH

“In general terms, the Hurlbut, Howe, Deming and Kelley testimonials paint a portrait of a young frontiersman and his family, struggling to eke out a minimal existence in western New York, facing the discouraging realities of life on the margins of society.

“Intelligent and quick-witted, if not always a hard worker, Joseph Smith, Jr., had been brought up by parents who believed in angels, evil spirits, and ghosts; in buried treasures that slipped into the earth if the proper rituals were not performed to exhume them; in diving rods and seer stones, in dreams and visions, and that despite their indigent status, theirs was a family chosen by God for a worthy purpose....

“Whether hunting for buried treasure or the ancient record of a lost civilization, neither Joseph nor his family saw any conflict between the secular pressures of earning a living, even by so esoteric a means as money digging, and a religious quest for spiritual fulfillment. If they could accomplish one goal by pursing the other, so much the better.”

“Nondescript and of little consequence until he started attracting others to his peculiar blend of biblical Christianity, frontier folk belief, popular culture, and personal experience, Joseph Smith was an enigma to his incredulous New York neighbors.

“For them, he would always remain a superstitious adolescent dreamer and his success as a prophet a riddle for which there was no answer.”

(Anderson, pp. 113-116)

http://rfmorg.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/joseph...

pearl wrote:

<quoted text>Do you really think that you could claim that as fact. Though your system might work well for some doesn't mean it would work for all. Like I said before, just disscssing not trying to prove you wrong.

Same here as for the discussion. I truly believe the average LDS Church member is far more libertarian than the average Republican or Democrat. We've had quite a variety of LDS members in government, from Mo Udall to the current Udalls, to Orrin Hatch, John Huntsman, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. Though I don't agree with all of their ideological beliefs, not a single one of them lost their membership status due to their political beliefs (I'm an Ezra Taft Benson type myself). I do believe that leaders of the LDS Church are sincere in professing free agency for all. I do believe that though church and civil government are separate, many principles utilized in LDS social programs would work just as well for civil programs. We know that what the Feds are doing now isn't working. I also believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that the average LDS Church member is extremely serious about the validity of the U.S. Constitution and what it means for the United States. The leaders of our church, since WW2 and before, have taught the benefit of, and great responsibility we have towards supporting, constitutional principles.

Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:

<quoted text>
I see that you and I agree on a few things. I too, absolutely love Barbara Bush. And, you're absolutely right, Ann Romney will make an excellent First Lady.

Having watched Ann Romney's speech tonight, and Christ Christie's, I gotta admit agree with you both on both points! Both were great!

I just hope when Mitt Romney gives his speech, he is actually gonna tell us what his plans are to making things better. All I know is he plans on cutting taxes and getting rid of Obamacare. There has to be more to his plans.

Dana Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, that makes one of us, because I don't see God being that confusing. They can't all be right. No way, no how.
<quoted text>
Same response. We'll have to agree to disagree.
1 Corinthians 14:33(KJV)
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

There's nothing confusing to know that God has the power to give his word in any format and language he wishes to. People like you cause the confusion by saying you know that God can only speak to a specific type people and none else. God never said any such thing. That is what yo claim, that is not what God claimed. There is a difference that your confusing.

Dana Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA research that is far from finished.

See, here is where you're swallowing a bitter fact. DNA testing has proved "most all" of the major outstanding claims of the last 130 years of who was Smith's ancestors as not being his ancestors.
All those books, all those writings, all those statements from people declaring they were tell god's honest truth, DNA has proved "most all" claims as lies. Good old factual lies.
We are now left with a smaller number to be examined now. See, it was a low number of wives that actually claimed to of had Smith's kid. Now only a few remaining "possibilities exist. The list is almost exhausted.
DNA has proved "most all" claims as lies Dana. Get that word? LIES. Science, modern science has proved their claims and testimonies FABRICATED LIES. You're losing ground on this issue dude :)

Dana Robertson wrote:

THE AFFIDAVIT-SIGNERS’ FINAL ASSESSMENT OF JOSPEH SMITH
“In general terms, the Hurlbut, Howe, Deming and Kelley testimonials paint a portrait of a young frontiersman and his family, struggling to eke out a minimal existence in western New York, facing the discouraging realities of life on the margins of society.
“Intelligent and quick-witted, if not always a hard worker, Joseph Smith, Jr., had been brought up by parents who believed in angels, evil spirits, and ghosts; in buried treasures that slipped into the earth if the proper rituals were not performed to exhume them; in diving rods and seer stones, in dreams and visions, and that despite their indigent status, theirs was a family chosen by God for a worthy purpose....
“Whether hunting for buried treasure or the ancient record of a lost civilization, neither Joseph nor his family saw any conflict between the secular pressures of earning a living, even by so esoteric a means as money digging, and a religious quest for spiritual fulfillment. If they could accomplish one goal by pursing the other, so much the better.”
“Nondescript and of little consequence until he started attracting others to his peculiar blend of biblical Christianity, frontier folk belief, popular culture, and personal experience, Joseph Smith was an enigma to his incredulous New York neighbors.
“For them, he would always remain a superstitious adolescent dreamer and his success as a prophet a riddle for which there was no answer.”
(Anderson, pp. 113-116)
http://rfmorg.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/joseph...

See this paste I took from the above, do some research on it and you know what is missing? Evidence. The evidence of what they all claim. Be nice to find that evidence they speak of.
"“In a statement dated 4 December 1833 and signed by 51 residents of Palmyra, New York, Smith was described as being ‘entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.’”
You realize Smith was just 27 at the time of this "statement"? That's still pretty young in 1833 to de described as "‘entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.’”
He married Emma in 1827. He printed the BOM in 1830.
Smith dug for money in his youth. That we know. Smith's claims of the golden plates earned him a lot of enemies in the Palmyra area, especially among the local ministers.
Now why don't you see what prompted these 51 residents to sign this statement? What was the occasion and reason that 51 people felt the need to speak as they did of Smith? You supplied the statement, now supply some information concerning the statement.

Dana Robertson wrote:

“In a statement dated 4 December 1833 and signed by 51 residents of Palmyra, New York, Smith was described as being ‘entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.’”

So I'm looking for a reason as to why these affidavits were being collected and what their purpose was for. Like a court case or what?
What I find is the following of whom had the initial hand in getting and obtaining these affidavits. Hurlbut hated Smith. Smith had excommunicated him from his church. So Hurlbut had a grudge against Smith.
If a man hated you for what ever reason and he went to your neighbours, your place of work and places you had worked, to where you had went to school to talk to school mates and he obtained 30 written statements from 30 people knowing you and, they all made all sorts of claims against your character, should I believe them? Would you tell me those statements were true about you and I should accept them as that? Hmm?
Or would you tell me that since the person gathering these statements hated you and the people he talked to had issues with you for whatever reason, that maybe I should consider the statements might be largely biased and untrue against you?

“Once published in 1834 [after being collected by Dr. Philastus Hurlbut,'a one-time Mormon who was excommunicated in 1833 for, among other things, saying "that he deceived Joseph Smith's God, or the spirit by which he was actuated"'], Hurlbut’s affidavits became especially dangerous to the newly founded church and its leader.

Dana Robertson wrote:

And again, by your demands of evidence, there is no actual evidence they were hard working or moral. We are going by your standards here.

Are you joking? Are you frigging absolutely nuts? do you have a mental defect happening?
Do you have any idea of what it took to have your own home in the 1800s with ten kids and acres and acres of land to plough and farm? And animals to tend? Horses, cows, cattle, chickens etc?
Do you even have the faintest fricking clue what it took to have all of that with a 12 member family and to cloth and feed them all?
That had to be the most stupidest, the most retardest statement you have ever made.
I was raised on a farm. I spent time on my cousin's farm. They only had 5 people in their family. From before sunrise to after sunset it was work, work, work even as a kid! And if we wanted "extra" money when we had "free time" we hired ourselves out to other farmers and ranchers to do work for them for $. In the summer it was all about irrigating the crops every single day, several times a day. And the bigger the acreage, the longer the irrigating took.
Spring was spent ploughing and then seeding. Summer was spent irrigating. The fall was spent harvesting and putting it all away that you didn't sell. Then you ploughed again. Winter was spent tending animals and staying home when you weren't at school. And then there was the regular maintenance of the farm/ranch that went on 12 months a year and the repair of vehicles or the building of a new shed or corral.
You fricking ignorant fool! Every single fricking family in just the 18th century that had a farm or ranch was harder at work than you'll ever fricking even know about! And it built character because you had so many responsibilities.
Smith was married, had his own little place and was a farmer putting clothes on his and Emma's backs and food in their mouths from their farm when these people were testifying he was hanging out at a store all day long did you know that?
You're ignorant stupidity really still can totally floor me at times and that is really sad.

Dana Robertson wrote:

THE DAMNING NATURE OF THE AFFIDAVITS AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
Anderson (who provides exact copies of the affidavits as well as other statements and interview) describes the affidavits’ contents, which were originally published by Eber D. Howe in his book,“Mormonism Unvailed”(Painseville, Ohio: Eber D. Howe, printer and publisher, 1834):

lolol....this just gets better and better...lol...a little research sure goes a long ways at times like this lol.
Your publisher you have set on high for his early 1834 Mormonisn Unveiled book, well here's a little more of him you didn't know of :)P

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/b/howe_ed.p...

After calling Smith an assortment of names etc for his religious practices and beliefs, after calling Smith and Smith's family liars, deceivers, hypocrites etc, guess what your author becomes a fricking spiritualist! Google 18th century spiritualism to know it better! He believed in ghosts and demons and shape shifters and the possessed and an ability to see into other "heavenly" dimensions etc! Talk about the pot calling a kettle black! lolol...fricking *ss funny as hell! Howe becomes what he accused Smith of being! lol.

Becomes a Spiritualist (date unknown).
We see the denizens of the upper spheres constantly at work devising new plans to make themselves known and respected among their dear ones left behind. They are determined to be seen, heard and felt; and not one in a thousand here will fail to perceive the truth of the great facts and phenomena who candidly and sincerely submit to the necessary conditions. There are now more believers in this new dispensation, after an exhibition of thirty years, than there were in the Christian religion for the first five hundred after its advent. It is "marching on" in its glorious career, and has already encircled the entire globe. Its numbers are computed by millions.

Dana Robertson wrote:

THE AFFIDAVIT-SIGNERS’ FINAL ASSESSMENT OF JOSPEH SMITH
“In general terms, the Hurlbut, Howe, Deming and Kelley testimonials paint a portrait of a young frontiersman and his family, struggling to eke out a minimal existence in western New York, facing the discouraging realities of life on the margins of society.
“Intelligent and quick-witted, if not always a hard worker, Joseph Smith, Jr., had been brought up by parents who believed in angels, evil spirits, and ghosts; in buried treasures that slipped into the earth if the proper rituals were not performed to exhume them; in diving rods and seer stones, in dreams and visions, and that despite their indigent status, theirs was a family chosen by God for a worthy purpose....
“Whether hunting for buried treasure or the ancient record of a lost civilization, neither Joseph nor his family saw any conflict between the secular pressures of earning a living, even by so esoteric a means as money digging, and a religious quest for spiritual fulfillment. If they could accomplish one goal by pursing the other, so much the better.”
“Nondescript and of little consequence until he started attracting others to his peculiar blend of biblical Christianity, frontier folk belief, popular culture, and personal experience, Joseph Smith was an enigma to his incredulous New York neighbors.
“For them, he would always remain a superstitious adolescent dreamer and his success as a prophet a riddle for which there was no answer.”
(Anderson, pp. 113-116)
http://rfmorg.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/joseph...

So. Let's contemplate some facts now that we know what you didn't research that you applaud as true and factual against Smith shall we?
When this book was being put together, Smith was a ways off in Ohio tending to his church, making settlements there and in Missouri.
The author of the book hated and detested Smith. If a person authored a book about you Dana and they hated and detested you, do you think the book would be unbiased or biased in nature? Biased of course, the author hates and detests you. The author wants to include character assassination statements against the person he is writing of. So does he choose a person who is indifferent about Smith or would he choose a person that also hated and detested Smith? He chooses a person that also hates and detests Smith. So who does Hurlbut gather statements from for this book? Does he talk to people who are indifferent of Smith or like Smith? No. That would be self defeating of the purpose of the book. He attains statements from people that have critical things to say of Smith.
Howe also attains other information from others that also speak ill of Smith.
Howe sets forth his book. But Howe doesn't include in the forward that he the author hated and detested Smith. he didn't include in the forward that Hurlbut, a man he hired to gather 51 statements against Smith also hated and detested Smith. He didn't include in the forward that no effort had been made to see if any one thought different of Smith.
So excuse me for doubting the veracity of this author and his statement seeker and the 51 people chosen who had something negative to say of Smith okay?:)

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
There's nothing confusing to know that God has the power to give his word in any format and language he wishes to. People like you cause the confusion by saying you know that God can only speak to a specific type people and none else. God never said any such thing. That is what yo claim, that is not what God claimed. There is a difference that your confusing.

Sorry, but their messages would be the same if God were talking to them, but they are not. Anyone can claim to be a prophet. Again you swallow the preposterous, and demand evidence for the obvious. You can drinking the kool aide all you want, but for example, for can't say that Mohammad, who teaches he is the last prophet, is right, then say Smith, who also claimed to be a prophet, a contradiction of Mohammad's teachings, is also right. That's just goofy.

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you joking? Are you frigging absolutely nuts? do you have a mental defect happening?
Do you have any idea of what it took to have your own home in the 1800s with ten kids and acres and acres of land to plough and farm? And animals to tend? Horses, cows, cattle, chickens etc?
Do you even have the faintest fricking clue what it took to have all of that with a 12 member family and to cloth and feed them all?
That had to be the most stupidest, the most retardest statement you have ever made.

Who said they had all of that? Now you are assuming, without evidence, dumbass.

I was raised on a farm. I spent time on my cousin's farm. They only had 5 people in their family. From before sunrise to after sunset it was work, work, work even as a kid! And if we wanted "extra" money when we had "free time" we hired ourselves out to other farmers and ranchers to do work for them for $. In the summer it was all about irrigating the crops every single day, several times a day. And the bigger the acreage, the longer the irrigating took.
Spring was spent ploughing and then seeding. Summer was spent irrigating. The fall was spent harvesting and putting it all away that you didn't sell. Then you ploughed again. Winter was spent tending animals and staying home when you weren't at school. And then there was the regular maintenance of the farm/ranch that went on 12 months a year and the repair of vehicles or the building of a new shed or corral.
You fricking ignorant fool! Every single fricking family in just the 18th century that had a farm or ranch was harder at work than you'll ever fricking even know about! And it built character because you had so many responsibilities.

Well asswipe(since you seem to be in the mood insult, I'll join you) how did he have time to go digging for buried treasure. How many acres did the Smith's farm? Do you know? Do you care? As usual you make claims without knowledge. We know he spent 3 months supposedly working day and night translating the BoM. Apparently, he had time. I don't give a damn how much time you or your family worked on a farm. You buy anything don't you?

Smith was married, had his own little place and was a farmer putting clothes on his and Emma's backs and food in their mouths from their farm when these people were testifying he was hanging out at a store all day long did you know that?
You're ignorant stupidity really still can totally floor me at times and that is really sad.

And what floors me is your ability to believe the ignorant and reject reality.

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
See this paste I took from the above, do some research on it and you know what is missing? Evidence. The evidence of what they all claim. Be nice to find that evidence they speak of.
"“In a statement dated 4 December 1833 and signed by 51 residents of Palmyra, New York, Smith was described as being ‘entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.’”
You realize Smith was just 27 at the time of this "statement"? That's still pretty young in 1833 to de described as "‘entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits.’”
He married Emma in 1827. He printed the BOM in 1830.
Smith dug for money in his youth. That we know. Smith's claims of the golden plates earned him a lot of enemies in the Palmyra area, especially among the local ministers.
Now why don't you see what prompted these 51 residents to sign this statement? What was the occasion and reason that 51 people felt the need to speak as they did of Smith? You supplied the statement, now supply some information concerning the statement.

You claimed there were no statements against Smith while he was alive, that we see is another lie on your part or an example of your ignorance on the subject. What prompted these statements was a desire to expose Smith for the fraud and con-artist he truly was instead of so-called "Prophet." Very simple, yes?

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
lolol....this just gets better and better...lol...a little research sure goes a long ways at times like this lol.
Your publisher you have set on high for his early 1834 Mormonisn Unveiled book, well here's a little more of him you didn't know of :)P
http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/b/howe_ed.p...

That link does not discredit Howe. What do you think it proves?

After calling Smith an assortment of names etc for his religious practices and beliefs, after calling Smith and Smith's family liars, deceivers, hypocrites etc, guess what your author becomes a fricking spiritualist! Google 18th century spiritualism to know it better! He believed in ghosts and demons and shape shifters and the possessed and an ability to see into other "heavenly" dimensions etc! Talk about the pot calling a kettle black! lolol...fricking *ss funny as hell! Howe becomes what he accused Smith of being! lol.

So? Smith certainly believed in demons, ghosts, etcetra, and your buying his fantasies, hook, line, and sinker. By your standards, believing such things does not disqualify him. The only thing that bothers you is that he doesn't take Smith's brand of kool aide. They can both be wrong on religious beliefs and he still can be telling the truth about Smith.

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
See, here is where you're swallowing a bitter fact. DNA testing has proved "most all" of the major outstanding claims of the last 130 years of who was Smith's ancestors as not being his ancestors.
All those books, all those writings, all those statements from people declaring they were tell god's honest truth, DNA has proved "most all" claims as lies. Good old factual lies.
We are now left with a smaller number to be examined now. See, it was a low number of wives that actually claimed to of had Smith's kid. Now only a few remaining "possibilities exist. The list is almost exhausted.
DNA has proved "most all" claims as lies Dana. Get that word? LIES. Science, modern science has proved their claims and testimonies FABRICATED LIES. You're losing ground on this issue dude :)

The man saying he was doing the DNA test, clearly stated he hadn't done them all. And you can't claim DNA clears Smith, but is wrong in proving that the BoM is fiction.